‘I will not stop,' Texas mom who lost son fights for fentanyl education
In 2023, she pushed for legislation named for her son, Tucker, who died from fentanyl poisoning. He was 19 years old. In June 2023, Roe sat beside Gov. Greg Abbott as he signed Tucker's Law, which requires Texas school districts to educate students in grades 6-12 about the drug.
Texas lawmakers push for decriminalization of fentanyl test strips
But passing the law was just part of the fight to honor her son and save lives. Roe said there has been confusion over how to teach the topic.
'It's an unfunded mandate from the state,' Roe said, adding that without funding, schools could struggle to meet the requirements of Tucker's Law.
'That's frustrating. A law without any guidance is a disaster. It created a disaster for schools,' Roe said.
Tucker was Roe's only son. After his death, she founded the nonprofit Texas Against Fentanyl, also known as TXAF. It's a 501(c)(3) founded to increase awareness, support and legislation surrounding the drug. Many of those involved in the nonprofit have their own stories of loss, and a mission to prevent others from dying from fentanyl poisoning.
'We understand the crisis for what it is,' Roe said.
A key part of the TXAF mission is education. Through The Tucker Project, TXAF developed Street Smart, an interdisciplinary curriculum to help teach about the dangers of fentanyl. Roe worked with the state of Georgia to implement the curriculum in their schools. She's working on a pilot program to get it into Texas classrooms.
Roe is hoping lawmakers will provide funding to roll out the curriculum. But she's also pushing for change on the national level.
'I will not stop until the nation has Tucker's Law and education is required at schools across the United States,' Roe said. 'We have a lot of work to do. I don't think I'll ever stop. I'll probably be marching at the Capitol for the rest of my life.'
Roe said she does it in Tucker's memory. She believes he would be proud of her work.
'I know that he's smiling and saying 'go get 'em, mama,'' Roe said, smiling, as she stood on the steps of the State Capitol.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Supreme Court gains confidence as power concerns climb
Americans are beginning to regain confidence in the Supreme Court after hitting an all-time low when the court effectively ruled to overturn Roe v Wade, according to an AP-NORC poll released Friday. The big picture: The confidence boost is notable because Americans increasingly thinkthat the Supreme Court has too much power, a trend likely to grow as the justices continue to take on cases that Americans are deeply divided on. Driving the news: The poll found that 67% of adults now have at least some confidence in the high court, up from 56% in a poll conducted shortly after the reproductive rights ruling. Thirty-eight percent of respondents think the court has too much power, a significant jump from 29% in April. Zoom in: The number of people who think the Supreme Court has too much power varies sharply depending on political affiliation. Fifty-six percent of Democrats think the court has too much power, up from 34% in April. Twenty percent of Republicans agree, which is roughly unchanged from the results taken in April. Republicans are almost two times more likely than Democrats to say that federal judges are too powerful (50% vs. 24%) which suggests an increased distrust towards the lower courts. Between the lines: The court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices that President Trump appointed, has ruled in Trump's favor in a slew of high-profile wins for conservatives. The court handed down a ruling in June that effectively weakens the judicial branches overall power. In that case, Trump v. CASA, Inc., the justices determined that federal district judges do not have the ability to block laws throughout the United States, a policy known as an universal injunction.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Man sues over girlfriend's abortion in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Orchestrating the effort is Jonathan Mitchell, a conservative attorney who helped construct Texas's 'heartbeat' law, the most restrictive abortion measure passed before Roe's fall. The lawsuit Mitchell set in motion alleges that the doctor violated the Comstock Act, a 19th century federal law that bans the mailing of 'obscene' materials, including abortion-related materials. Now in a post-Roe era, Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates have worried that the government would invoke Comstock to ban medication abortion, which accounts for most abortions in the United States. Advertisement The case is a new approach alleging state and federal law violations - filed in federal, rather than state court - though it's too early to tell how viable that strategy will be. Advertisement 'This very much has the feeling of taking matters into your own hands,' said Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at the University of California at Davis. The plaintiff, Jerry Rodriguez, is suing California-based physician Remy Coeytaux for more than $75,000. Rodriguez, who stated that he is suing on behalf of 'all current and future fathers of unborn children,' is asking the court for an order blocking Coeytaux from mailing abortion pills. His complaint adds that he plans to sue the manufacturers and distributors of the abortion pills if they are identified during discovery. Coeytaux did not respond to a request for comment from The Washington Post, and it was unclear whether he had retained an attorney as of Thursday. In Texas, women who get an abortion cannot be prosecuted. But antiabortion activists in the state have publicly sought out men who are willing to bring cases against people who helped their partners have an abortion. Mitchell, who declined to comment Wednesday, has represented men in at least two similar cases out of Texas, both filed in state court. In a 2023 lawsuit, a man alleged that three women helped his ex-wife get abortion pills to end her pregnancy. That case was later dropped. In May 2024, Mitchell helped a man file a petition to investigate an ex-partner's out-of-state abortion, setting up for a wrongful-death lawsuit. In the new federal court complaint, filed Sunday, Rodriguez alleges that Coeytaux mailed abortion pills to his girlfriend's estranged husband in September 2024. The pair were not divorced when Rodriguez and the woman began dating but were already legally separated, according to the lawsuit. Rodriguez's girlfriend, whom The Post is not naming because she is not a plaintiff and to protect her privacy, took abortion pills on two occasions, once in September and another in January, to end two pregnancies after her estranged husband and mother 'pressured her,' according to the complaint. On Monday, Rodriguez filed a separate wrongful-death lawsuit in state court against the estranged husband and mother; Mitchell is also representing him in that case. Few details of the relationships between Rodriguez, his girlfriend, her mother and her estranged husband are included in the lawsuit. According to Rodriguez's complaints, his girlfriend is now pregnant again. Advertisement Since the Supreme Court in 2022 struck down the constitutional right to the procedure, the number of abortions has increased, bolstered by medication abortions enabled by telehealth, data shows. In an attempt to thwart that access, officials in red states are launching attacks on the shield laws in blue states that keep the pills flowing across the country. Texas and Louisiana are pursuing legal action against a New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to patients in those states, which both ban nearly all abortions. To the frustration of prosecutors, New York officials have refused to comply, citing the state's shield law. As a result, the conservative strategy to punish providers had slowed in state courts, though experts say the cases could end up on the Supreme Court's docket and ultimately reshape medication abortion access. In the meantime, the federal lawsuit has emerged as a new method to potentially curb abortion access. Carmel Shachar, a law professor at Harvard Law School, said the case designed by Mitchell uses a different legal framework, but the end goal remains the same - to 'close that telehealth loophole.' Advertisement
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
1 in 3 Americans lack confidence in Supreme Court, primarily Democrats: Poll
Public confidence in the Supreme Court has ticked up slightly since it plummeted after the nation's highest court overturned federal abortion rights protections in 2022, according to a new survey. The AP-NORC Research Center poll, unveiled Friday, found that 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. remain wary of the Supreme Court — chiefly driven by Democratic skepticism. Roughly 67 percent of those surveyed said they had at least 'some' confidence in the court — up from 56 percent in a poll conducted just after the decision three years ago upended the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. The same poll in 2020 — before the historic Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health case was decided — found 86 percent of people overall said they had confidence in the high court. The most dramatic swings in public confidence over the three polls from 2020 to this year were seen on the Democratic side: About 80 percent said they had at least some confidence in the court in the 2020 poll, but that number plunged to 35 percent in 2022. The latest poll found about 43 percent of Democrats expressed confidence in the justices. Meanwhile, Republicans surveyed in the latest poll were overwhelmingly more supportive of the court than in previous years, which has tracked conservative since President Trump appointed three justices to the bench during his first term. About 90 percent of GOP respondents said that they have 'some' or a 'great deal of' confidence in the justices, showing only a slight shift from 2020 when about 95 percent of Republicans said the same. Attitudes among independents has fluctuated some since 2020, but not as pointedly as the views among Democrats surveyed. More than three-quarters of independents polled in 2020 said they had 'some' or a 'great deal of' confidence in the Supreme Court. The number dipped to 52 percent in 2023 but bounced to 67 percent in the 2025 results. The AP-NORC poll surveyed 1,347 adults across the country from July 10-14 and has a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.
